Are you a supporter of the 2nd amendment, or do you support restrictions? - Page 9
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of FirearmsTalk.com!    
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism >

Are you a supporter of the 2nd amendment, or do you support restrictions?


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-12-2012, 12:39 PM   #81
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 820
Liked 157 Times on 115 Posts
Likes Given: 3

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by axxe55

while agree with your assessment of interpretations of the Bible and such, i think the founding fathers knew that some idiots would try and interpret the 2nd admendment from it's true meaning, so therefore they made it simple and concise. even small children have no problem understanding it, why do some adults?

i believe in no gun restrictions whatsoever, period. the one we have now are unconstitutionas as it is. there was a time when a person could walk into a hardwar store and buy dynamite. i don't think the average citizen should have nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. nor do i think the average citizen needs them either.

the thing is all gun control laws are answers to problems that were never solved, crime. in the wake of stupid tragedies involving firearms of some sort, they get on the bandwagon and start trying to push more gun control on us in response to these incidents. they blame the firearms and the LAC is the one who is punished not the perpertrator or the criminals. time has proven that gun control laws, restritions and bans have been ineffectual in detering or preventing crime, and more restrictions or gun control laws will not change this one iota.

my simple belief is, "Shall Not Be Infringed". if they want restrictions or controls, they need to go to the source and that's the criminals. i think we all know the criminals are going to fully disregard any new laws as they have disregarded past ones.
In nc we cant have fire crackers
95sniper is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 12:59 PM   #82
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,698
Liked 2611 Times on 1484 Posts
Likes Given: 2004

Default

I think the 2A is VERY CLEAR.

It encourages the public to form militias,

and clearly states we can use any weapons of

our own choosing, however we want, in

order to keep the nation secure.


It wasn't written for the convenience of

lawyers or politicians, but specifically

TO KEEP THEM in LINE...
therewolf is offline  
4
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 01:27 PM   #83
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KG7IL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Eatonville,Washington. My nearest neighbors are cows.
Posts: 2,802
Liked 2032 Times on 1124 Posts
Likes Given: 6085

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vikingdad View Post
Anti-gunners are pretty thick out here on the left coast.
What I don't get are ones like my Brother In Law.
Loves shooting the AK, AR, G17 and such, thinks guns are great, but still voted for Obama on this issue. Thinks Obama would have already done something if he was going to.
KG7IL is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 01:27 PM   #84
Proud to be an American
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Pasquanel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: S.Maine
Posts: 1,303
Liked 1043 Times on 488 Posts
Likes Given: 532

Default

Sadly the 2nd amendment and the constitution mean absolutely nothing to this administration they have no need to ban anything they just legislate it out of existence!
This administration will over the next 4 years appoint 2 or 3 supreme court judges and the take over will be complete! Constitution? What constitution?
__________________
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Pasquanel is offline  
shadecorp Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 05:18 PM   #85
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,698
Liked 2611 Times on 1484 Posts
Likes Given: 2004

Default

I think we need to participate in the first part of the 2A, to

protect the second part...

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the

security of a free state; the

right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...

Last edited by therewolf; 11-24-2012 at 05:21 PM.
therewolf is offline  
axxe55 Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 11:02 AM   #86
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Ruger22lr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 452
Liked 87 Times on 65 Posts
Likes Given: 69

Default

What do they not get by "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..."? I mean honestly some people just do not understand. I support no restrictions at all. Because criminals are criminals and really do not care if it is legal or not. Obviously chemical weapons and WMD's should be illegal. I'm just talking about guns here.

Last edited by Ruger22lr; 11-26-2012 at 11:05 AM.
Ruger22lr is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 11:52 AM   #87
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
TNFrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: TN. U.S.A.
Posts: 293
Liked 125 Times on 68 Posts
Likes Given: 130

Default

Ditto, people that think laws and restrictions will stop criminals from getting guns are living in fantasy land. Criminals are CRIMINALS because they break laws. If we could pass a law and stop a criminal from doing "X" or "Y" then they'd not be criminals in the first place.
All restrictions and laws do is INFRINGE on a law abiding citizens Right to Bear Arms. I believe there should be Zero laws by the Feds restricting firearms.
__________________
http://www.infowars.com/
Member: Gun Owners of America
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here!
This is the War Room!"
TNFrank is offline  
3
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 11:44 PM   #88
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Detroit,mi
Posts: 3,460
Liked 1340 Times on 792 Posts
Likes Given: 250

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruger22lr View Post
What do they not get by "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..."? I mean honestly some people just do not understand. I support no restrictions at all. Because criminals are criminals and really do not care if it is legal or not. Obviously chemical weapons and WMD's should be illegal. I'm just talking about guns here.
Where does one draw the line?

According to Tom Gresham on Gun Talk, Obama was heard to suggest that any firearm that has been used in a war environment should be banned... It was also suggested that cheap handguns should be banned?

It was suggested earlier that nuclear weapons wouldn't be included, but I still struggle with how to draw the line. Founding fathers couldn't have imagined some of the weapons that are available today...

IDK
partdeux is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 02:02 AM   #89
Lifetime Supporting Member
Feedback Score: 1 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains,CA
Posts: 14,922
Liked 9081 Times on 5276 Posts
Likes Given: 11970

Default

I think the line would be drawn where the government draws it. If they can be trusted not to use WMDs and/or chemical weapons against the citizens then we should be safe without them too. But can we trust them in that? So the question is not where is the line drawn. Is it?
Vikingdad is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Second Amendment Restrictions Imposed Sniper03 Legal and Activism 9 12-28-2011 03:56 PM
Do you really support the Second Amendment? opaww Legal and Activism 48 04-09-2010 08:12 PM
Ranger Up & ASP Support The 2nd Amendment opaww Politics, Religion and Controversy 1 08-05-2009 09:49 PM



Newest Threads